# SCHIP Round 2...here we go again



## Cigarmark (Apr 2, 2007)

Congress begins Round Two on SCHIP Proposal 
<IMG height=211 alt=Franklin hspace=5 width=182 align=right vspace=5 border=0 name=ACCOUNT.IMAGE.5> * 
Industry continues to work for compromised tax provision

October 25, 2007
* 
Congressional Democrats are currently working on legislation to reintroduce the SCHIP legislation. This proposed legislation will be nearly identical to the previously failed proposal, HR976. Attempting to appease moderate Republicans, only minor revisions have been made to the eligibility requirements. The tobacco tax proposals, including the excessive taxation on handmade cigars, will remain in the legislation. 

IPCPR's federal lobbyists feel that with no substantial changes to this second SCHIP proposal, the president will again veto the legislation (if and when it passes both the House of Representatives and the Senate), and the veto will withstand a second attempt at an override by the House-not enough moderate Republicans will not be swayed to vote in favor of an override due to such minimal changes.

Progress has been made in demonstrating on Capitol Hill that the current proposal will prove detrimental to our industry and we continue working for a compromise. 

As this is a sensitive issue, when the timing is appropriate, IPCPR will initiate a new Federal Action Alert through the Legislative Action Center. 
Chris McCalla
Legislative Director


----------



## RHNewfie (Mar 21, 2007)

Sigh...


----------



## BarneyBandMan (Mar 29, 2007)

I really see no end to it until the Executive Branch is occupied by the same party as the House and Senate. Then we're :bn!!


----------



## BlueHavanaII (Feb 2, 2007)

FYI... this is on the House Floor now (C-SPAN).


----------



## macjoe53 (Jul 8, 2007)

Here's a link to the article...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071025/ap_on_go_co/children_s_health


----------



## kjjm4 (May 8, 2007)

BarneyBandMan said:


> I really see no end to it until the Executive Branch is occupied by the same party as the House and Senate. Then we're :bn!!


That's probably true. They Democrats probably won't budge an inch in the meantime, and the kids that were relying on SCHIP will get the shaft, unless the states pick up the tab somehow.


----------



## Bob (Jun 29, 2006)

I may just go to rolling my own!!:ss


----------



## macjoe53 (Jul 8, 2007)

Democrats ramrodded another version of the bill through again. Nice of them to not give the Republicans time to even read the bill before bringing it to a vote.


----------



## kjjm4 (May 8, 2007)

The Dems ramrodding probably helped our cause, assuming that the Republicans weren't dumb enough to vote for it without reading it. It's quite disenheartening to me that any of the reps on either side were willing to vote for a piece of legislation they didn't have time to read and comprehend.


----------



## macjoe53 (Jul 8, 2007)

The democrats who voted for it, all of them by the way, did what their party chairman said to do.

There were 46 republicans who also voted for it but even if they had voted against the bill it would have still passed.


----------



## NCcutter-cl (Oct 21, 2007)

If the Founding Fathers were here to see how our personal freedoms are being eroded, and how the Constitution is being misused, or not used at all, there WOULD be another Civil War.

IMHO, everytime a piece of legislation passes that makes us less and less free, we disrespect every serviceman/woman who has ever fought and died for freedom and for this great country.

Sorry to rant. I'm new here, but this kinda stuff really pisses me off.


----------



## kjjm4 (May 8, 2007)

They didn't get a veto proof margin this time either: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/25/schip.vote/index.html

Bush is going to veto it again. Ready for round 3?


----------



## Lanthor (Jun 16, 2007)

My taxes go to pay these idiots? Unreal.


----------



## c2000 (Oct 16, 2003)

Hey this is politics it doesn't matter to these people if the legislation passes or not its an opportunity for the democrats to bash Bush and the republicans for not caring about children. They won't let this go without alot more sound bites about the poor poor children.. Next year when Hillary gets in the tables will turn and she won't be able to do anything right and everything will be her fault. 

Jerry in Minnesota.


----------



## Bob (Jun 29, 2006)

c2000 said:


> Hey this is politics it doesn't matter to these people if the legislation passes or not its an opportunity for the democrats to bash Bush and the republicans for not caring about children. They won't let this go without alot more sound bites about the poor poor children.. Next year when Hillary gets in the tables will turn and she won't be able to do anything right and everything will be her fault.
> 
> Jerry in Minnesota.


Looks like a shoo-in for a female President...Follow the MONEY!!o


----------



## IHT (Dec 27, 2003)

i thought this bill was about children?? what's it got to do with tobacco? 
or am i confused?


----------



## BlueHavanaII (Feb 2, 2007)

IHT said:


> i thought this bill was about children?? what's it got to do with tobacco?
> or am i confused?


You are correct... it IS about the children (according to the Democrats!).
The only problem is that you (the smoker) will be paying for these kids healthcare with higher tobacco taxes (expect cigar prices to increase about 70%).


----------



## IHT (Dec 27, 2003)

macjoe53 said:


> Here's a link to the article...
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071025/ap_on_go_co/children_s_health


that's total bullshit.
not one word about anything dealing with tobacco products in that article.
some slick ass muther truckers... i hate politicians.
this country needs a fuggin enema.


----------



## Bob (Jun 29, 2006)

IHT said:


> that's total bullshit.
> some slick ass muther truckers... i hate politicians.
> this country needs a fuggin enema.


I do believe it is a bit Impacted!!!:2


----------



## mdtaggart (Sep 22, 2006)

Bob said:


> I do believe it is a bit Impacted!!!:2


Impacted because their head is blocking the exit. :BS


----------



## tedski (Oct 1, 2004)

IHT said:


> i thought this bill was about children?? what's it got to do with tobacco?
> or am i confused?


What's even more confusing is that Congress continues to tie funding for this measure to tobacco taxes ... while at the same time they, along with state governments are doing everything possible to force more and more people to quit smoking.

It's like throwing a bag of hammers to a drowning man ...


----------



## IHT (Dec 27, 2003)

tedski said:


> What's even more confusing is that Congress continues to tie funding for this measure to tobacco taxes ... while at the same time they, along with state governments are doing everything possible to force more and more people to quit smoking.
> 
> It's like throwing a bag of hammers to a drowning man ...


:r
excellent point, ted.


----------



## kjjm4 (May 8, 2007)

That's why people who don't smoke should be against taxing the hell out of smokers to fund new programs. Eventually, there won't be enough smokers to foot the bill, and they're not going to cut the program, so the tax burden will fall on everybody else.


----------



## IHT (Dec 27, 2003)

kjjm4 said:


> That's why people who don't smoke should be against taxing the hell out of smokers to fund new programs. Eventually, there won't be enough smokers to foot the bill, and they're not going to cut the program, so the tax burden will fall on everybody else.


nah, i just don't think that program will stay funded for long.


----------



## Bob (Jun 29, 2006)

IHT said:


> nah, i just don't think that program will stay funded for long.


It dang well would not stay funded if there was a smoke out:ss

But that would hurt a lot of people in the Tobacco business including the farmers.


----------



## brigey (Dec 17, 2006)

kjjm4 said:


> That's probably true. They Democrats probably won't budge an inch in the meantime, and the kids that were relying on SCHIP will get the shaft, unless the states pick up the tab somehow.


*I don't mean to pick on your comment, but it reminds me of what I would have to do if the insurance companies would not pay for it or if I did not make enough to pay for the medical procedure myself, I would do whatever it takes to provide for my family. Ask parents, church members, friends, relatives, take on a second or third job until I could pay for it. We have become (generally speaking that is) lazy as a country looking for the govenment to pay for just about everything. *

*I enjoy smoking cigars quite a bit, but if it came down to my children or my smoking pleasure, I would have to give the cigars up for my family.*


----------



## RaiderinKS (May 10, 2007)

I agree with taxing cigarette smokers to the hilt for stuff. If you are actually bothering to inhale smoke, you are causing an enormous economic burden on your countrymen (because you probably wont be able to afford the cost of your own healthcare). However, this cigar taxing bullshit is total horsecrap.


----------



## Bax (Sep 12, 2007)

kjjm4 said:


> That's why people who don't smoke should be against taxing the hell out of smokers to fund new programs. Eventually, there won't be enough smokers to foot the bill, and they're not going to cut the program, so the tax burden will fall on everybody else.


I think that is the whole point. It's a win/win situation for the government.

It's not that there won't be enough smokers to tax (There always will) but as the taxes rise, more people will quit smoking, therefore lowering the cost of the healthcare for those people. Less you spend on the cancer/lung disease patients, the more you can spend on the childrens care.

The problem they aren't admitting is that cigars are normally for pleasure, not an addiction... well for some, I've seen some of the humi pics floating around this site. :dr... and the affects that the cigar tax will have on aide. As the countries that rely on cigars as major income suffer, we'll be increasing aide to help, therefore negating a large portion of the tax money.

I can't count how many people come into my store and complain that they need to quit cigarettes, but just can't. Hitting the in the wallet may be the only way to stop them, but I've NEVER heard someone come in say they really need to quit smoking cigars.

Paying for childrens health care for a few years or paying for Cigarette smokers for the rest of their lives. Which makes you more angry? All I can tell you is which one is MUCH more expensive, and it isn't the kids.

I say tax the hell out of cigarettes and leave the handmades alone! :ss


----------



## qwerty1500 (Feb 24, 2006)

It's a lovely theory ... we can help the children with a tax that someone else pays. How can you be against that?

Maybe we need a french fry tax ... and maybe a sofa tax too ... after all, those over-weight couch potatoes may become a burden on society. We could build that Woodstock museum and probably pay off the national debt.

Let's use the tax code to control behavior. Then, someday, when I'm perfectly politically correct, I won't owe any taxes. What a great idea!


----------



## macjoe53 (Jul 8, 2007)

Here's an idea. Instead of taxing tobacco products to pay for children's healthcare why not tax something that is a definite contributor to their health problems - soft drinks. From what I understand, the U.S. consumes in the neighborhood of 8.5 BILLION gallons of soft drinks a year. Congress should put a 5¢ a gallon excise tax on the manufacture of soft drinks. Of course, this will be passed on to the consumer but the cost increase would probably only be in the neighborhood of 10¢ for a 2 liter bottle (that's just WAG - wild ass guess!). 

Now if my math is right, then governement would receive approximately $425,000,000 a year in taxes just from the manufacturers.


----------



## qwerty1500 (Feb 24, 2006)

macjoe53 said:


> Congress should put a 5¢ a gallon excise tax on the manufacture of soft drinks.


Not a bad idea really ... if all you want to do is fund SCHIP.

But, if you really want to solve the problem, create one of those "win-win" situations, you must control the childrens' behavior. Since parents aren't responsible enough to stop their children from drinking soft drinks, the government must do that for them. Congress could use the tax code ... $1 a can should do the job.

But, why stop there? How about a sugar tax? I probably ought to give up pie anyway.

I'm just afraid that soft drinks and sugar aren't politically incorrect enough ... yet. Give them time ... they will get around to it.


----------



## macjoe53 (Jul 8, 2007)

qwerty1500 said:


> Not a bad idea really ... if all you want to do is fund SCHIP.
> 
> But, if you really want to solve the problem, create one of those "win-win" situations, you must control the childrens' behavior. Since parents aren't responsible enough to stop their children from drinking soft drinks, the government must do that for them. Congress could use the tax code ... $1 a can should do the job.
> 
> ...


Ahh! You don't understand the progression. First they tax soft drinks which would lead to less sales because people would quit, so to make up the budget shortfall they start taxing all breakfast sugar containing additional sugar. How many pounds of Frosted Flakes and Corn Pops are sold each year? Think of the money that congress could steal from out pockets!


----------



## qwerty1500 (Feb 24, 2006)

macjoe53 said:


> Ahh! You don't understand the progression. First they tax soft drinks which would lead to less sales because people would quit, so to make up the budget shortfall they start taxing all breakfast sugar containing additional sugar. How many pounds of Frosted Flakes and Corn Pops are sold each year? Think of the money that congress could steal from out pockets!


You're way ahead of me ... :tu


----------



## Bob (Jun 29, 2006)

qwerty1500 said:


> It's a lovely theory ... we can help the children with a tax that someone else pays. How can you be against that?
> 
> Maybe we need a french fry tax ... and maybe a sofa tax too ... after all, those over-weight couch potatoes may become a burden on society. We could build that Woodstock museum and probably pay off the national debt.
> 
> Let's use the tax code to control behavior. Then, someday, when I'm perfectly politically correct, I won't owe any taxes. What a great idea!


That about sums it up for me!! You said a mouthful there!!:chk


----------



## Bax (Sep 12, 2007)

Wow, this is really starting to make me hungry. 

Hmmmm....4 dollar soda.......hmmmmm


----------



## BlueHavanaII (Feb 2, 2007)

macjoe53 said:


> Here's an idea. Instead of taxing tobacco products to pay for children's healthcare why not tax something that is a definite contributor to their health problems - soft drinks. From what I understand, the U.S. consumes in the neighborhood of 8.5 BILLION gallons of soft drinks a year. Congress should put a 5¢ a gallon excise tax on the manufacture of soft drinks. Of course, this will be passed on to the consumer but the cost increase would probably only be in the neighborhood of 10¢ for a 2 liter bottle (that's just WAG - wild ass guess!).
> 
> Now if my math is right, then governement would receive approximately $425,000,000 a year in taxes just from the manufacturers.


I agree wholehartedly! I've been pushing for a junk food tax.. maybe tax candy bars, soft drinks and energy drinks a nickel apeice.

Jim


----------



## qwerty1500 (Feb 24, 2006)

BlueHavanaII said:


> I agree wholehartedly! I've been pushing for a junk food tax.. maybe tax candy bars, soft drinks and energy drinks a nickel apeice.
> 
> Jim


Let's see ... candy bars, don't eat em ... soft drinks, prefer sweet tea ... energy drinks, hope coffee doesn't count. Okay ... zero for three ... sounds like a great tax.


----------



## IHT (Dec 27, 2003)

as the song "stars and stripes of corruption" by the Dead Kennedy's said, "let's tax religion".


----------



## yayson (Aug 21, 2006)

from http://www.crosswalk.com/news/11557095/



> Perhaps the hardest hit by the new tobacco tax will be cigar companies. While the federal tax on cigarettes would go up 320 percent, the stogie industry faces a 6,000 percent increase of the federal cigar tax cap. Additionally, the tax rate on wholesale cigars would be bumped from 21 percent of the price to 53 percent.
> 
> Last month, the Corona Cigar company issued a press release expressing alarm at the new tax rates and advising consumers to brace for enormous price increases.
> 
> ...




Scary opinion right there, how an American can look at, and justify as positive, a 6000% tax increase on anything is mind boggeling

BTW, in case anyone was wondering I'm nowhere near a "wealthier consumer"


----------



## IHT (Dec 27, 2003)

yayson said:


> from http://www.crosswalk.com/news/11557095/
> 
> Scary opinion right there, how an American can look at, and justify as positive, a 6000% tax increase on anything is mind boggeling
> 
> BTW, in case anyone was wondering I'm nowhere near a "wealthier consumer"


ditto.
may have to start odering my pipe tobacco from overseas.


----------



## macjoe53 (Jul 8, 2007)

_"The first win is that the cigarette tax will be increased by 61 cents, which will have a significant impact on youth smoking rates," she said. _"*And the other win is that millions of children, including those with lung disease, will be able to have health insurance as a result*."

And just how many of those children are inflicted with lung disease because of smoking?

*"Reynolds noted that complications and cancers developed from smoking drove healthcare costs up and added that all Americans could benefit financially from fewer smokers."*

No. What drove healthcare costs up were frivolous lawsuits by ambulance chasing lawyers looking to win the lawsuit lottery. That and insurance companies looking to raise their rates to make more profits while seeking to deny rightful coverage.

_"But Dr. Michael Siegel, a professor at the Boston University School for Public Health, argued that tobacco taxes were not the most effective way to fund SCHIP.

"I don't dispute the idea that increasing the cigarette tax will reduce smoking," he told Cybercast News Service. "I don't think there's any question about that. But it doesn't make sense to me to permanently tie the financial solvency of children's health insurance to the need to continually increase the number of smokers."

"It's the most politically expedient solution," he said. "Clearly, to expand the program, you've got to get the revenue from somewhere, and I think that this is just the most politically easy target, because it's popular to go after smokers."_

A doctor who understands the situation. Obviously in the minority...

And to think Reynolds comes from a family who made their billions off of tobacco. It paid for his upbringing, his college and he is probably still living off his grandparent's money. What an a$$hat.


----------



## Bob (Jun 29, 2006)

IHT said:


> ditto.
> may have to start odering my pipe tobacco from overseas.


Heck we could all invest in the Euro and buy with the Euro from the European Union our cigars and probably come out ahead!!


----------



## GOAT LOCKER (Aug 7, 2004)

IHT said:


> ditto.
> may have to start odering my pipe tobacco from overseas.


Unfortunately, that will only be a temporary fix. As more folks take this route, the govt will move to further regulate overseas purchases in order to enforce tariffs/taxes. The Credit Card and Shipping Companies will cave to their pressure.


----------



## nimravus01 (Aug 15, 2007)

This whole thing just makes me mad! I'm at a loss for words!


----------

